Campos-Chaves v. Garland

Background

Three noncitizens—a man from El Salvador, a man from India, and a man from Mexico—were given initial government notices to appear that did not list a specific time and place. The Government later mailed separate hearing notices that named exact dates and locations. Each man missed the hearing that the later notice scheduled and was ordered removed in absentia. Each then asked an immigration judge to rescind the removal order, arguing the original notice to appear was defective.

Reasoning

The central question was whether a person may undo an in‑absentia removal order by showing only that the initial notice to appear lacked time or place information. The Court focused on the statute’s requirement that an alien demonstrate he “did not receive notice in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2).” The majority read “or” disjunctively and held that the operative written notice is the one that actually told the person when and where to appear for the hearing they missed. Because each man received a later paragraph (2) hearing notice that specified time and place, the Court held they had received the written notice relevant to the missed hearing and so could not rescind their in‑absentia orders on that ground.

Real world impact

The ruling makes it harder for people ordered removed in absentia to reopen those orders when the Government later provided a hearing notice that set the time and place. The Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit and reversed or vacated earlier Ninth Circuit rulings, sending at least one case back for further proceedings.

Dissents or concurrances

Four Justices dissented, arguing the majority weakened prior decisions and reduces incentives for the Government to provide complete initial notices to appear.